Api terminologies object retrieve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing — no mention of what the returned object contains, whether it 404s on unknown ids, or how it differs from the plain retrieve endpoint. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes zero additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency — the entire body is a name echo with no front-loaded purpose. Nothing is wasted because nothing is said.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a retrieve tool with no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what object is returned and how to identify it; it does neither. In a namespace with hundreds of near-identical *_object_retrieve tools, this definition is completely inadequate for correct selection or invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter `id` is described nowhere. The description does not state whether id is a UUID, slug, or integer, nor how to obtain it. With one undocumented param, the description should have compensated and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is literally the tool slug restated ('api_terminologies_object_retrieve') with no verb, resource explanation, or scope statement. It is tautological — an agent learns nothing beyond what the name already encodes. There is no differentiation from sibling tools such as api_terminologies_retrieve or the many other *_object_retrieve variants.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., terminologies_list vs terminologies_retrieve vs object_retrieve). The agent must infer everything from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.